BF2S Forums What would the world be like if we never took slaves from Africa

Turquoise wrote:

LostFate wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

It like to put a 12 gauge into the heads of people who believe that 9-11 was done by the US government.

We then you better start shooting people who have half a brain.

You know, I had always wondered why people believed in that sort of thing.  I think you just answered it though.

For those of us with a whole brain, we realize that the Bush administration was too incompetent to set up 9/11.

haha, i should have seen that one coming.

Other countries would still have brought slaves to the Americas and therefor there may not be as many blacks but not else would have changed.

Maybe there'd still be slavery now?

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There would've been more european slaves called indentured servants.

Civil war would probably still have happened, as it wasn't about slavery, it was about state's rights and different priorities in economics. Slavery was one issue where the underlying problems came to the forefront.

Homogeneity would probably still be an issue, just with different skin tones.

While I would agree that economics were the basis behind the Civil War, the conflicts themselves never would have been as severe without slavery.  Abolitionism was basically the straw that broke the camel's back when it came to relations between the North and the South.  Without a conflict over which new territories would become slave or free states, there would be much less provocation towards war.

As for the KKK, that group didn't even form until after the Civil War.  Without a Civil War, there would be no reason to create the KKK.

I'd say slavery was a straw that broke the camel's back. That back was bound to be broken, sooner rather than later. It just became convenient to blame it all on slavery and ignore the broader issues.

Address the KKK point to whoever made it. It wasn't me.

Whoa there buddy...  I figured you understood that the KKK reference was to Cybargs.

I generally agree that there was already a lot of tension between the North and South, but I find it hard to believe that a Civil War would've occurred without slavery being part of the equation.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

While I would agree that economics were the basis behind the Civil War, the conflicts themselves never would have been as severe without slavery.  Abolitionism was basically the straw that broke the camel's back when it came to relations between the North and the South.  Without a conflict over which new territories would become slave or free states, there would be much less provocation towards war.

As for the KKK, that group didn't even form until after the Civil War.  Without a Civil War, there would be no reason to create the KKK.

I'd say slavery was a straw that broke the camel's back. That back was bound to be broken, sooner rather than later. It just became convenient to blame it all on slavery and ignore the broader issues.

Address the KKK point to whoever made it. It wasn't me.

Whoa there buddy...  I figured you understood that the KKK reference was to Cybargs.

No need to whoa...just wanted to make sure you understood I hadn't made any KKK references.

Turquoise wrote:

I generally agree that there was already a lot of tension between the North and South, but I find it hard to believe that a Civil War would've occurred without slavery being part of the equation.

And that's a fallacy. Remember that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't occur until well after the Civil War had started (and there is a whole other discussion in and of itself). There were a large number of other issues--largely economic in nature--that sowed the seeds of the Civil War. Slavery played a part, but even without slavery (even though a large part of the South's economy depended on slave labor) it still would have happened. Immigrant labor would have replaced slave labor in the South just as it had in the North...but the other underlying problems would still have existed.

Turqoise wrote:

The West Coast would be predominantly white, Asian, and Hispanic.   Asians, in particular, would probably make up a much larger portion of the West Coast than they currently do.

It already is. Oregon is roughly 2% black, Washington 4.5%, and California 6.5%.

Superior Mind wrote:

Mitch wrote:

THIS IS NOT A RACIST POST.

Oh, good to know that.

I imagine things would be more like Canada?

More asians?

and no long distance charges for calling tech support.

Mr. T would of been white....my best guess

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There would've been more european slaves called indentured servants.

Civil war would probably still have happened, as it wasn't about slavery, it was about state's rights and different priorities in economics. Slavery was one issue where the underlying problems came to the forefront.

Homogeneity would probably still be an issue, just with different skin tones.

pretty good. . .

Civil war would've still happened. Slavery just helped mutual grievances along.

We'd have a Chinese President...

Mitch wrote:

None of the inventions black people made? (im sure theres some). Other stuff black people have attributed to culture?

The Blues.

The majority of modern music started with The Blues. Jazz, rock, funk, R&B, etc. and from these you get metal and all it's sub genres, it goes on and on but I'm a bit pissed and it's 4:30am here. Night.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

We need a, "What would the world be like, if we never colonized Africa".

Or Asia. Or Americas. It'd be pretty fucking shit.